Meet the Press NOW — February 18

Hi there, welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Ryan Nobles in Washington, where more Republicans are throwing their support behind President Trump's push for Congress to overhaul voting in America ahead of the midterms, as he threatens to unilaterally overhaul elections if Congress fails to act. Of course, it all comes as the President and his party struggle in the polls and face the prospect of losing control of Congress this November. With the midterms approaching, the White House-backed Save America Act now has 50 Senate Republicans backing it after Maine Senator Susan Collins became the latest to declare her support.

The legislation, which narrowly passed the House last week, would require new voters to show proof of citizenship to register to vote. It would also mandate photo ID across all 50 states to cast a ballot, even if voting by mail. And it would require states to verify voter registration with the Department of Homeland Security. Senate Majority Leader Thune has promised to bring the bill to the floor for a vote, but Democrats right now have the votes to block it.

Yesterday, Senator Scott of Florida, Rick Scott, I should say, brushed off concerns the bill could create logistical problems ahead of the midterms if it passes. We have 50 people on it now. What I tell everybody, call every U.S. senator you know until it passed the House.

I don't care if you're a Republican or Democrat. It doesn't really matter. We all want election security. Senator Lisa Murkowski has said she has some concerns because if this were to pass, this could impact the elections happening this year.

And logistically, it could be a nightmare for local election offices. What do you say to that? So that's not been what people told me. So, I mean, everybody asks me why do I do everything else?

I mean, how is that a big difference? It's not a big change. So Democrats have slammed the bill, arguing it's an effort to disenfranchise voters. This is what Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said.

They make it so hard to get any kind of voter ID that more than 20 million legitimate people, mainly poor people and people of color, will not be able to vote under this law. We will not let it pass in the Senate. We are fighting it tooth and nail. It's an outrageous proposal that is, you know, that shows the sort of political bias of the MAGA right.

They don't want poor people to vote. They don't want people of color to vote because they often don't vote for them. Meanwhile, President Trump vowing to overhaul voting by himself if he has to, writing on social media, there will be voter ID for the midterm elections whether approved by Congress or not. As he makes a full throttle push for changes to elections ahead of the midterms, repeatedly calling for the federal government and by extension Republicans to take control of elections despite the Constitution granting that power to the states.

The Republicans should say, we want to take over. We should take over the voting in at least many, 15 places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting. If a state can't run an election, I think the people behind me should do something about it.

We can't allow cheating in elections. Now, if we need to put in federal controls as opposed to state controls, remember this, they're really an agent. They're really accumulating the votes for who wins an election. If they can't do it honestly and it can't be done properly and timely, then something else has to happen.

Joining me now is our NBC News team. Senior national political reporter Sahil Kapoor, Garrett Haake at the White House and Jane Tim who covers voting and elections. Sahil, let's start with you here in the studio. Let's talk a little bit more about this legislation and what are the realistic prospects of getting through the Senate.

The first thing, it's a photo ID requirement to vote. It's proof of citizenship to register to vote. That's a big one. Take a look at the list of documentation that would be valid in this situation.

You can show a passport. You can show a birth certificate. A few other possibilities. You can't show a driving license unless it shows that you're a U.S.

citizen. You can't attest under oath under criminal penalties, which is current law that you're a citizen. You have to show proof. And if you can't produce the proof in time, you cannot register to vote.

And it also requires verification of eligible voters through the DHS systematic alien verification for entitlement system, which critics say is flawed, that in theory, Democrats argue it could give the president and Christina power to disqualify voters effectively. So that's the contents of the legislation. Now in terms of the path, President Trump strongly supports this. It has passed the House.

It has 50 votes in the Senate. Susan Collins of Maine was vote number 50. But it has no path to getting 60 votes. You heard Schumer say that he's going to fight it vehemently.

What Senator Mike Lee, the sponsor and his allies are pushing the majority leader John Thune to do is use what's known as a talking filibuster under current rules to try and force the minority to hold the floor. Now, this is not a new idea. It's been considered by Democrats for the last decade. They've junked the idea every time because the onus is heavily on the majority to be on the floor, to have 51 senators on or near the floor at all times, including the hours of 3 a.m., 4 a.m.

While the minority just needs to have one senator holding the floor and they can rotate between them. So it's never worked in the past. Unclear it'll work this time. But that's the fight we're going to see.

Senator John Thune is going to have to try something. And let's talk about the legislation itself. There are many tentacles to it, as you pointed out. But the overall crux that Republicans are selling is that it's about requiring a voter ID, a photo ID, I should say, when you go to the ballot box.

And this actually has pretty broad support across the country. About 83 percent of Americans say they support this concept. Is this something that could box Democrats in as a result? Partly, yes.

This is the Republicans' strongest political argument for the law. So 83 percent, according to a few recent center polls, support it. Among Democrats, 71 percent of self-identified Democrats support it. Even 76 percent of black voters say it's perfectly fine to have to show a photo identification to vote.

So the Democrats' message that this is a racist law or this is Jim Crow 2.0 is not landing on that point. What's a little bit misleading about the Republican argument is that this poll only tested the voter ID. It did not test the proof of citizenship, which I'm told Democrats are going to focus on. They're going to argue it sets up a whole bunch of onerous requirements that could disqualify eligible American citizens who don't have easy access to a passport or birth certificate, including married women who recently changed their name or changed their name years ago and don't have the entire trail of documentation.

If they can't prove it in time, they wouldn't be able to vote. So they're going to cite a report that says up to 20 million Americans could be affected here. And what I mentioned, that DHS system, they don't want to give Christina and Donald Trump any more power to potentially disqualify voters. All right, Sahil, thank you for that.

Let's turn now to the White House part of this. Garrett Haake, the president says he's going to pursue an executive order if the Save America Act doesn't pass. Would that accomplish what he wants here or could states just ignore it? Do they have any responsibility to listen to an executive order when it comes to elections?

Yeah, look, Ryan, this came up in the briefing room today from a questioner who I think very much wanted to see the White House, you know, get this bill across the finish line. Caroline Levitt addressed it. I'll tell you kind of the problems with her answer on the other side. Listen to this.

He's discussing and exploring legal options for a potential executive order with respect to voter ID. But this is something he's made very clear. He wants Congress to get done. The president thinks you should have an ID to vote in our nation's elections.

And I know the vast majority of Americans agree with him on that. And he wants Congress to move and move quickly to get it done. So here's the problem with that answer, Ryan, and the answer to your question. White House has already tried this.

They issued an executive order last spring, almost a year ago in March. It was ultimately struck down by the courts for having no force of law. The federal government at the end of the day, especially the president without Congress acting, has really no authority when it comes to how states and municipalities administer their elections. I think that's why you hear Caroline Levitt say they want Congress to address this because, you know, they could be creative with the language.

They can go back to the drawing board. They can try to maybe take a smaller bite out of this. But it's been pretty established law that the president can't do this with the stroke of a pen. Yeah, the Constitution is a pretty impressive roadblock when it comes to something like this.

One of the things that the Save America Act doesn't do is eliminate mail in voting. And if we go through all the long list of things that the president whines about when it comes to elections, mail in voting is certainly near the top. Is this going to be an area that where Republicans are willing to buck him? Well, you want to answer that better than me from Capitol Hill, right?

It seems more like they're hoping that the president simply doesn't notice. I mean, this is the kind of thing where the debate about the SAVE Act has gone on unencumbered by the fact that it doesn't include the president's favorite provision here. You know said that his client was told by the attorney general at the time that he was not a co-conspirator nor a target of any investigation. Joining me now is Capitol correspondent Melanie Zanona.

So, Mel, tell us more about what we're learning about what Les Wexner told the oversight committee. Well, Wexner is answering questions. He did not plead the Fifth. And for Wexner, he said he wanted to use this as an opportunity to really set the record straight.

In his opening statement to lawmakers there for the deposition, he said that he was a victim, essentially, of a con man who led a double life. And he also said he had zero knowledge of Epstein's crimes. Saying in his opening statement, I was naive, foolish, and gullible to put any trust in Jeffrey Epstein. He was a con man.

And while I was conned, I have nothing, done nothing wrong, and have nothing to hide. I completely and irrevocably cut ties with Epstein nearly 20 years ago when I learned that he was an abuser, a crook, and a liar. But, Ryan, some of the Democrats who were present for that deposition, not exactly buying what Les Wexner is selling. Just listen.

He's someone that's been named by survivors, someone that's in the files more than most people, someone that's clearly the financial benefactor to Jeffrey Epstein, and has not been contacted or interviewed by the FBI or the DOJ. What the hell is going on? Wexner's name did appear thousands of times in the Epstein files. And there was another unredacted then redacted email that showed him as a co-conspirator.

But another FBI email from 2019 said there was limited evidence regarding his involvement, Ryan. But the House Oversight Committee does have questions. I mean, they're particularly interested in the flow of money between Wexner and Epstein. Are we learning anything about that aspect of their relationship?

Well, this is still ongoing, this deposition. I'm sure we'll learn a lot more once they do eventually release the transcript and the video, as Republicans on the committee have promised. But, Ryan, you're right. The reason why lawmakers are so interested in Les Wexner is because of that financial connection.

Epstein was his financial advisor for decades. Epstein was also his power of attorney. And so what lawmakers really want to know here is whether that money that flowed from Wexner to Epstein was used to sort of finance some of his sex trafficking crimes. And as we see, Melanie, many of these powerful men say they cut ties with Epstein a long time ago, but then the files tell a different story.

Wexner's version of events is that they cut ties in 2007. Did the files released by the DOJ support that claim? That's exactly right. He said he permanently ended his relationship with Epstein in 2007.

And that was after Epstein was charged with solicitation of prostitutes for a minor. That's also when Wexner said he discovered that he was actually stealing millions. Epstein was stealing millions from the Wexner estate. But according to that batch of emails that was released by the DOJ, they maintained contact in 2008.

In fact, there was one email in which Wexner writes to Epstein that he feels sorry for him and that Epstein violated his number one rule of always be careful. So clearly there was at least some level of contact after 2007, Ryan. Okay, Melanie Zanona, thank you for that. We appreciate it.

Coming up, hundreds of investigators, thousands of tips, DNA testing, and a suspect still at large. The search for Nancy Guthrie enters an 18th day. We'll have the very latest from Arizona next. Plus, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies in a landmark trial about social media addiction and whether platforms like Instagram are engineered to exploit young people.

You're watching Meet the Press Now. Welcome back. The search for Nancy Guthrie is now in its 18th day with more than 400 investigators following up on thousands of leads in an effort to find the mother of our NBC News colleague, Savannah Guthrie. The Pima County Sheriff telling NBC News that investigators are now searching genealogical databases for any matches.

The sheriff also says the identification of this backpack seen in video from Guthrie's front porch could be a crucial piece of evidence in this case. That backpack that we could positively now identify as a backpack that is sold at one place only. That's Walmart. So we're working with our Walmart managers all across the state to try to find out how many sales were there of that backpack in the last 20 30 days, the last 60 days.

And can we do something with that? Can we break it? Maybe we'll find a credit card or a bank card. Maybe we'll maybe we'll find a video of the guy walking in.

NBC News correspondent Jesse Kirsch joins me now from Tucson. Jesse, it's now been more than a week since the last major break in this case, which was, of course, the release of the footage from Nancy Guthrie's front porch. Just give us an update on where things stand. Yeah, so right now, Ryan, one of the big things we're waiting for more information on.

We know that authorities are looking into is a sample of mystery DNA that they've recovered from Nancy Guthrie's property. It does not belong to Savannah's mother. It does not belong to Nancy Guthrie, Savannah's mother's family or close contacts, according to authorities. And we also now know from the sheriff because of his interview with our colleague Liz Crois that that DNA sample does not match someone who may have been there for business purposes, someone who works at the property, perhaps as a housekeeper, perhaps as someone who would be servicing the pool.

So they've run down those kinds of leads. And so they have this sample of DNA that they say is mixed with other DNA. And so they're working to separate those samples to then be able to run it through systems and see if it takes a match if it matches in a database. So that is something that could potentially become a break in this case if they're able to identify someone through that DNA.

You just heard the sheriff talking about the Walmart backpack. There are other articles of clothing that are worn there. You can see in the surveillance images the sheriff talking about the holster, the gun holster that is on this person of interest. The suspect has what the sheriff describes as unique characteristics.

So perhaps they can identify the holster and then find a list of people who bought both the holster and the backpack and then work off of that. So, you know, of course, those are just some of the things that are being looked at right now. And again, as you mentioned, it has been several days since we've had a major update like surveillance video. We know that there's potentially more footage that could be recovered.

The sheriff says it is a delicate process and that they're getting help from multiple tech companies to see what else they can do. Let's go back and talk more about the backpack. We did hear from the sheriff. They are talking about how they're canvassing local Walmarts.

Have they had any success there? How are the efforts going to try and determine who bought that specific bag and when? Yes, so the sheriff referenced potentially thousands of purchases that have been made of that backpack. And again, that is the only item that publicly we have been told has been positively identified by authorities.

It's only sold at Walmart. So we know that is the only company that would have that item. But because authorities have not announced to the public if they have identified any of the other items, the ski mask, the gloves, the zip up jacket that the suspect has on, the gun holster, the gun. None of those items have been announced to us publicly.

We know that, of course, Internet sleuths are always looking at every little piece of a frame of footage that is released. But at this point, we have not been told by authorities what those other items are, if they know what those other items are. And so that leaves a question about where those other items may have been purchased, but perhaps that is something they'll have an answer on soon. Okay, Jesse Kirsch in Tucson, Jesse, thank you for that report.

We turn now to a landmark social media trial in California that could send massive ripple effects through Silicon Valley and beyond. Today, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg took the stand for the first time to defend his company against accusations that social media services like Instagram were intentionally designed to be addictive to young people, fueling a youth mental health crisis. Attorneys for the tech companies argue there are many factors that lead to mental health issues and their platforms cannot be blamed. The trial was attended by several families of children who died by suicide.

They say they were linked to online trends. NBC News business and data correspondent Brian Chung is following the trial. He joins me now. So, Brian, what did we hear from Mark Zuckerberg today?

Yeah, and Mark Zuckerberg is still testifying. Obviously, that's why this is such a high profile case. There are no cameras in court. However, we are getting from our team in LA that's inside the courtroom a lot of commentary.

They've been describing the interactions between Mark Zuckerberg and the plaintiff's attorney as very combative. And Mark Zuckerberg is trying to push back against the attorney's assertions that not only was Facebook and Instagram aware of how their products could be addictive and lead to mental health issues for children and young teens, but that they continue to do so to try to maximize shareholder profit and also to increase the business at Meta. Now, when it comes to what Meta has said, they've been pushing back on all this, saying that not only is it not their perspective that it was really their products that led to mental health decline in this specific 20 year old that has filed this lawsuit, but they're also going to argue that the social media use from this particular person actually happened after she was already experiencing some of We know that when we resist and when we know that it seems like they're trying to change the rules and bend to the knee of or bend the knee to this president, that backfires in historic fashion. So this is kind of a weird place for her to be right.

She doesn't want to stand on the side of blocking his access here, but is there a way for her to blunt the momentum that Talib could likely get from this? Well, it's certainly money momentum. We'll see if it actually translates to anything besides a little blip right now. Early voting is starting in Texas as we speak.

Certainly, Jasmine Crockett is where the energy is in Texas in the party. You could argue Ken Paxton is a corollary on the other side. But, you know, again, I think this was a little gambit cooked up by Stephen Colbert and Talib to try and get this at the right time. We'll see if it happens.

We have a couple more weeks until March 3rd. There's competitive primaries on both sides. It's gonna be a high turnout for everybody. I'm curious to see whether or not Talib or Crockett can go through.

But then you have the Republicans, which is a three-way car crash, so to speak, on their side. But let's get to that in a second. Do you agree with Matt's assessment that the momentum is behind Crockett? I don't know if I would agree with that.

I think you're seeing him on Colbert, which I think leads you to understand that, like, Colbert thinks he's going to be something big. So I think it's the early voting is just beginning. And I think he has the opportunity to take it. His name is not big.

He's not been in Congress. He's, you know, has only been in the in the House for, you know, less time than Jasmine Crockett has been. So we'll see what happens in the Statehouse. The Statehouse, yes.

Let's turn to the Republican side here that Matt alluded to. They have their own primary issues with some candidates that are probably less than desirable, at least for national Republicans. So President Trump is just hesitant to get involved. He basically said in all of the above endorsement is where he's pining his hopes right now.

Why do you think the president is so reluctant to pick a horse in this race? Well, I think his instincts and Matt maybe might know better, but I think his instincts would be to lean towards Ken Paxton. And given that John Cornyn, the incumbent, is running, I think every Republican senator is saying, please, Mr. President, don't endorse Ken Paxton.

And so maybe from their perspective, the fact that he said I have three friends in the race and I'm not endorsing is a victory because the president worked to intervene. He probably wouldn't intervene on the side that they particularly want. And I think Republicans are also worried not just because they want to protect incumbents, but also because they worry that Ken Paxton is the only candidate who could lose probably to Tyler Rico, maybe not to Jasmine Crockett. And so for them, that's another reason that they really don't want the president to intervene.

And maybe from their perspective, he's doing probably the best that he can do. So let's get Matt's take on it, then as the Republican at the table. A, are you worried about Ken Paxton winning? And is it enough for Donald Trump just to not endorse to blunt Paxton's march toward the nomination?

I mean, a couple of things, right? This has been the case, a longtime worry for Republicans, right? There was a worry when John Cornyn's numbers were soft a year ago. There was talk of, do you find him a job in the administration?

Is he in the NASA administration? Is he something else? They can appoint, it becomes a little bit more of an early transition. But you're right, I'll say this.

From what I've heard, a lot of folks in the White House are not happy with Ken Paxton doing this whole gambit and costing them possibly a seat or at least a bunch of money and attention as well. But I think also, too, this is almost certainly not the only time Republicans are going to be voting in Texas on the Senate race. They'll likely have a runoff among the top two folks. Right now, look at anybody, whether it's Hunt, Paxton, or Cornyn could be in that top two.

But depending on who's in that top two, really the landscape will look very different. Well, this is what John Cornyn is saying about it. Our producer Bowman, who is in Texas right now, just published a piece describing what he thinks the outcome would be if Ken Paxton were the nominee. He says that if Ken Paxton is the nominee, we could well experience a massacre.

And the first Democrat elected since 1994 in the state of Texas. I've said this many times on the show, Kendra. I've reported on Democratic hopes in the state of Texas in vain multiple different times, multiple different iterations. If Ken Paxton is the nominee, should we actually believe that Texas could go blue?

Well, I think not only Texas could go blue, but you're also seeing a governor's race down there. And you're seeing a woman who's running against the incumbent who has a chance to win as well if Ken Paxton is on the race. And so I do think that it could flip and it could not only carry the Senate and help carry the Senate, it could carry the governor's mansion as well. Okay, I didn't agree with that.

Do you think the governor's mansion is in play? I don't necessarily think yet, but you don't want somebody like Ken Paxton on the ticket right now, I think. Yeah. Okay.

All right, so let's turn to what's happening here in Washington. Oklahoma Governor Stitt spoke at the Economic Club. Let's play a little bit of what he said. The federal government shouldn't dictate all of our lives across the country, right?

We have 50 different laboratories of democracy. These states are different. States' rights are very important. Federal government has its place, but we need to defer to the state governors, whether it's on whatever the policy that we're talking about today.

So Saturday night, where will you be? I will be at the White House on Saturday night to speak on that issue. So we have to do this quick. What is this talk?

I mean, what does this say coming from a Republican when we see the president increasingly trying to encroach on the rights of states? Yeah, Kevin Stitt's been interesting. He's on a few occasions, especially with the Minneapolis deployment and the ICE deployment there. He's been one of the few Republican governors who's not gone so far as to criticize the president, but to say, like he said there, that federalism is important, that, you know, this is a system in which state governors ought to be respected.

And I think that he's carved out a little bit of a niche for himself, which we're talking about is quite interesting. The Republicans, does the president risk going against the kind of limited government idea that Republicans have usually championed? I don't think Donald Trump sees it that way. We're in what Kevin Stitt thinks.

However, I do think you could be seeing two 2028 candidates on that stage. And I'm not talking about David Rubinstein. Well, I was just gonna say, too, I think Stitt is interesting because he is completely on the other side as it pertains to tribal sovereignty. He thinks that tribes should not be allowed to do whatever they want.

He believes that they can't handle their own crime on their lands. And so I think it's an interesting sort of juxtaposition that he thinks that states should be able to do what they want, but he's very clear about where tribes should be. All right, we want to go back to the White House predicting the 2028 field right here. We'll mark it down.

Okay, Idris, Kendra, Matt, thank you all for being here. After the break, Democrats trying to expand the map, now targeting solidly red states in this year's midterms. Are they building a wave or stretching themselves too thin? Congresswoman Susan DelBene, who runs the campaign arm for the House Democrats, is next.

You're watching Meet the Press now. Welcome back. Joining me now is Democratic Congresswoman Susan DelBene of Washington. She's also the chair of the Democratic Congressional Committee.

Congresswoman, always a pleasure to talk to you. Let's talk about your work at the DCCC. Recently added five more seats that you believe you can flip in 2026, but most of them are considered solidly Republican districts by the Cook Political Report. What makes you so ambitious here?

Why do you think Democrats can flip those? Well, you know, folks are souring on the Republican agenda. They have broken promises over and over to lower costs for the American people. Folks are struggling and they're struggling with high prices, housing, food, healthcare, energy costs, all going up directly because of actions of Republicans in Congress and this administration.

And we've seen in special elections since November of 2024, folks voting for Democrats. We are running 13 points ahead across the country in special elections and 17 points ahead in congressional special elections. So because of that, we know that people want representatives who are going to stand up for them. All of these districts, we have strong opportunities.

These are all districts that Donald Trump won by 13 points or less. We have great candidates who are running and an opportunity to have a district to help us take back the majority. So now we have an offensive map of 44 districts across the country, really in all corners of the country. Yeah, let's talk about that map.

So 44 seats, that'd be a wave election like we really haven't seen since 2010 when Republicans picked up 63 seats. Are you just shooting for the They are getting the facts so that they know what policy ideas are out there. So you're going to hear that from Democrats across the country. Again, we need to amplify and stand up for the voices of the American people.

That's going to be our job every day, but definitely also our job on Tuesday evening. Okay, Congresswoman DelBene, thank you as always for joining us. We appreciate it. Thank you.

Still to come, smells like trouble. The escalating political blame game over the disastrous sewage spill in Washington, D.C. Welcome back, and we are turning now to that massive sewage spill here in the D.C. area and the escalating political blame game as cleanup efforts continue on the Potomac.

Congressional Democrats from Maryland and Virginia have sent a letter to the head of D.C. Water to express serious concern about the environmental and health impacts of the spill. E. coli levels in the Potomac have soared as a result of the more than 250 million gallons of sewage spilling into the river.

The EPA put out a statement yesterday calling it a sewage crisis of historic proportion and adding, quote, The Trump EPA has the experience and track record to fulfill President Trump's strong desire to get this mess cleaned up as fast as humanly possible. The agency, though, says officials in Maryland and D.C. have not asked for any assistance. And this is legal affairs reporter Gary Grumbach joins me now.

Gary, this is a mess, both literally and physically. But let's talk about the efforts to fix and clean up this spill. This is going to take a while. It's going to take a while for both fixing and cleaning up.

Fixing, though, is the priority here right now. They have diverted the sewage into an empty C&O Canal, which is an area right near the D.C. area. And that is bypassing it back into the sewer system.

So it's not currently millions and millions of gallons pouring into the Potomac. But this is still a real issue. It's going to take five to six weeks to get this temporarily fixed and up to 10 months to get it permanently fixed. So the EPA says that it has the ability to clean up the mess, but they say they're actually not helping with the cleanup effort.

So what's the disconnect? Yeah, that's a good question. And actually, there's officials at the White House as we speak from D.C. Water, Virginia, Maryland and the EPA trying to get all on the same page about this.

It took 30 days for them to have a White House meeting, but they are finally having this meeting. The EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA, they've all said they are ready and willing to help, but they're not actually helping yet. In fact, today is the first time we've heard that FEMA is on the ground at the site now beginning the process to help. At some point, could they just say, all right, we're in charge.

We're taking over. Does it work that way or do they need some buy-in from the state and local leaders? So they do need some buy-in from state and locals or something called the Sherman Act, which I won't get into too much detail on. But it does allow states to have to request this sort of information and request this sort of help.

But this is something the federal government has the resources to do. These are natural disasters like this that happen all the time around the U.S. They can and they have the knowledge to help this sort of situation. And they're simply at this point not.

So are the locals asking for it though? They want the help and they're just not responding? Governor Westmore said today that he's, yes, sure, President Trump, come on and help us if you will. I think that needs to be a little more official than that in a press briefing.

There's some paper passed back and forth, but the help certainly seems to be on the way, but slowly. And this is day 30. And is it possible that this would end up as part of congressional action? Could there be hearings on this?

We've seen both lawmakers from Virginia and Maryland demanding that. Yeah, I've talked to lawmakers. I've also talked to local leaders. Glenn Echo, Maryland, a town of about 300 people.

What should the mayor there said? She just wants communication. She wants the residents to understand that when it's going to be safe to be able to go near the Potomac, because right now it's not going to be safe. There may be hearings and maybe public hearings about this.

And there also is just concern, not for the Potomac itself, but for the folks that live around this area where they're diverting the sewage, right? Yeah, that's the case. And also Montgomery County Fire and Rescue actually came out with a statement saying any rescues they have to do near the Potomac River, they're going to require their folks to wear PPE, meaning masks, face masks, any of that kind of stuff around the river. Now, there's a lot of ways to joke about this, but it really is an awful situation.

It's going to take a long time to fix. Gary, thank you so much for being here. We appreciate it. And we are going to be back tomorrow with more Meet the Press Now.

But there's plenty more news ahead right here on NBC News Now. Thanks so much for watching. Have a great day. I'm Craig Melvin.

Cheers. Cheers. Cheers. I've always been a glass half full kind of guy.

And now I'm talking to people who look at the world that way too. Some really fascinating folks who share their defining moments, their triumphs, their challenges. Their stories are funny and quite candid. So I hope you'll join me each week.

And who knows, you might just come away with your own glass half full. Search Glass Half Full with Craig Melvin from today on YouTube and wherever you get your podcast.